On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 01:08:00 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Joakim, el 14 de June a las 19:31 me escribiste:
The frontend was dual-licensed under the Artistic license, which also allows such proprietary use, so nothing has really changed.

Mmm, even when is true that the Artistic license is a bit more
permissive than the GPL in some aspects, I think is hardly suitable for
doing serious proprietary software (that you intent to sell).

From the artistic license that was distributed by DMD:
"You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your

Is a bit hairy, I don't think any companies would want to do proprietary
tools using the artistic license :)


I was referring to this clause from the Artistic license:

"4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files, together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where
    to get the Standard Version."

So you could have always distributed a modified, closed ldc with the frontend under the Artistic license- it would have to be ldc as the dmd backend is proprietary- as long as you also provided an unmodified ldc along with it.

I don't think the part of the Artistic license you excerpted would apply to such a modified program, but even if the advertising part applied, I doubt any commercial user would care. Usually those who take your code _don't want_ to advertise where they got it from. ;)

I realize you prefer the LGPL, to force others to contribute back to the frontend if they modify and distribute it, but the Boost license is much simpler and as Walter points out, proprietary use can help
D's adoption.

Again, I think from the practical point of view is the same. If you use boost license and tons of proprietary tools come out CHANGING the DMDFE and not contributing back, then the D community might get a boost because the have better tools but they are missing the contributions, so is hard to tell if the balance would be positive or negative. If they don't change the DMDFE (or contribute back the changes), then using
boost or LGPL are the same, because it doesn't matter.

Having better-quality paid tools would be a big boost, whether they released their patches or not. You point out that commercial users could always link against a LGPL frontend as a library and put their proprietary modifications in their own separate library, but that can be very inconvenient, depending on the feature.

Also, I've pointed out a new model on this forum before, where someone could release a closed, paid D compiler but have a contract with their customers that all source code for a particular binary will be released within a year or two. This way, you get the best of both worlds, revenue from closed-source patches and the patches are open-sourced eventually. Such mixed models or other experimentation is possible under the freedom of more permissive licenses like Boost, but is usually much harder to pull off with the LGPL, as you'd be forced to separate all proprietary code from the LGPL frontend.

Reply via email to